The history of music theory as a discipline encompasses many genres
of historical writing. On the broadest level, the sources divide into
practical and speculative treatises. The practical treatises have been
the mainstay of efforts to come to grips with how earlier musicians went
about composing, performing, and teaching music as a performative practice. The pragmatic: culture of the Carolingian period witnessed an
explosion of such treatises and they. along with their many successors
from later eras, reveal insights into musics that ve continue to love
even though (perhaps partly because) they are veiled by the shroud of
historical distance.

Speculative treatises offer a different experience and present a
quite different set of challenges. The speculative treatise
traditionally attempts to get at the reality behind music's
sounding surface. 'lire impetus behind this can be traced back to
Pythagoras's mythical observations in the blacksmith's shop.
By discerning that the consonances arose from specific ratios,
Pythagoras took the intellectual leap to the assumption that the cosmos
was ordered in a rational, mathematical manner. Music, in this sense, is
not concerned with the perfor mauve as such but rather with the ontology
of musical sound insofar as it participates in ontology perse, as well
as with music as an epistemological study. How is it that the parts of
the universe cohere? Of what does the Being of those parts consist? How
is it that we are able to recognize the reality behind appearances?

Music in the latter, speculative, sense is, of course, music as a
liberal art. As such it was categorized, by Boethius and his many
followers, as part of the quadrivium--arithmetic, geometry, music, and
astronomy. The interest in music as a liberal art encouraged many
authors who were riot themselves musicians to write about music as part
of larger intellectual projects. The origins of such writings can be
traced at least back to the late Roman period, with the most celebrated
example being Boethius's De institutione musica. However, whereas
Boethius's text is remarkably consistent (with some notable
exceptions) and limits itself to two models (Nichomachus and Ptolemy),
many other authors present a compendium of thoughts about music culled
from numerous previous sources without having fully synthesized that
information.

This subset of speculative writers, including such early figures as
Macrobius and Martianus Capella from the early fifth century, often
brings together ideas concerning music that are mutually contradictory
or that their authors simply misunderstood. One might think that such an
assessment would consign these texts to the dustbin of historical
curiosity, but that is hardly the case. In fact, one might assert that
these texts provide the modern scholar with the most important
information regarding the history of music theory qua history of ideas.
After all, many of these treatises were wildly popular and widely read
and disseminated. These were the books that well-educated nonrnusicians
would have read regarding music. They were the "popular
science" books of their day. As confused and inconsistent as their
depiction of musical science might have been, these treatises represent
the inconsistent and catch-all quality of musical knowledge held by the
educated readers of their eras. This makes them fascinating, if obscure,
objects of study.

The music section, "The Temple of Music," of Robert
Fludd's massive Utriusque cosmi ... historia (Oppenheim, 1617-18)
is a key example of this genre from the early seventeenth century. The
larger treatise has long intrigued historians of science, but it has
garnered less attention from music scholars. This situation will
doubtless change owing to Peter Hauge's fine translation, appearing
as an integral part of the "Music Theory in Britain,
1500-1700" from A.shgate. This publication opens with an
introduction by Hauge that anticipates the contents of the treatise,
places it briefly in historical context, and discusses its publication
history as well as translation issues. The main body of the book
contains the emended Latin text on facing pages with Hauge's
translation. This is followed by endnotes that seek to clarify some of
the problematic passages in Fludel's text while tracing his various
sources. Throughout the treatise, Hauge provides plates that reproduce
Fludd's celebrated illustrations--the central illustration being,
of course, the Temple of Music itself. The temple, presided over by
Apollo (the god of rational music) and Thalia (the joyous muse),
contains within its structure representations of the various aspects of
musical knowledge--a clock representing the durations of musical time, a
monochord tower signifying the proper divisions, a lower vestibule showing Pythagoras and the smithy, graffiti on the walls presenting
musical notation, two entryways representing the portals of the ears,
and a spiral near the top signifying air set in motion by sound. The
temple serves as a mnemonic device to structure both the treatise and
one's comprehension of music. As the treatise proceeds, Fludd
examines the temple in detail with illustrations of enlarged portions of
We structure serving to guide his discussion.

Fludd divides his treatise into an introduction and seven books.
The introduction describes the temple briefly. The first book introduces
the subject of music with definitions and etymologies. This book
introduces the quasi Porphyrian trees that serve to structure much of
the information Fludd presents (this compendious method of presentation
was employed earlier by Artusi in his summary of Zarlino's work).
The second book briefly discusses the hexachords arid the third
addresses the ratios of the intervals via the monochord. The fourth book
deals with rhythmic concerns; the fifth provides an introduction to
composition; the sixth addresses organology; and the seventh presents an
automaton for music making of the author's invention (thus tying
this book into the seventeenth century craze for automata).

The quality and readability of Finder's Latin varies greatly
over the course of the treatise. As Hauge points out, this may support
the notion that. Flucid began the book while a student at Oxford and
continued 1 0 acid to it. over the course of several years (p. 26). Thus
Hauge's very approachable translation, which manages to be
simultaneously easy to comprehend and faithful to the original, is
itself quite an achievement. Occasionally an odd translation choice
appears--generally when flange seems reticent to emend the text, even
when he clearly acknowledges that it requires emendation. For instance,
Hauge mentions in an endnote that a certain "argument appears to
contradict. itself when 'co quod' is translated as
'because' " (p. 261). Yet that is preeisely how he
translates it. If that translation is misleading (which it. is, as Hauge
recognizes), then why not provide a better one?

Hauge is equally successful in tracing Fludd's various
sources, the most valuable contribution of the endnotes. Where he comes
op a bit short is in certain interpretive elements and in placing
Fludd's treatise within the larger context. of the history of music
theory. Two brief examples will suffice here. At the beginning of the
third book, Hauge translates Fludd as writing The whole tone is the
perfect interval between two pitches, containing two unequal
semitone's; or the whole tone is a percussion of air unresolved all
the way to the sense of hearing" (p. 73). In both cases, I lauge
translates the Latin 'tonus' as 'whole tone.'
However, it is clear front the context that while the first instance of
the word is indeed to be translated as 'whole tone,' insofar
as we are dealing with an interval, the second instance should simply be
'tone.' It makes no sense to describe the whole tone (and it.
alone) as a percussion of air that reaches the hearing. That. is the
traditional definition Of tone qua pitched sound. The immediate _jump
from whole tone (tonus) as interval to tone (tonus) as pitched sound is
confusing but. not at all atypical of treatises of this type. While the
.juxtaposition may be awkward insofar as Fludd simply brings together a
hodgepodge of information seemingly at random in an attempt to
.synthesize his sources--the mistake in undcrstanding is not, strictly
speaking, Fuldd's. There are several other inconsistencies between
the translation and the commentary.

With respect to Hauge's attempt. to place the treatise within
the larger context of the history of music theory, the issue is a bit
more complicated. For the most part. Hauge limits himself to the context
of English theory. This makes perfect sense given the series of which
this book is a part. However, the fifth book, as Hauge acknowledges, is
the portion that is likely to intrigue most readers (p. 17) because here
Fludd not only presents a method for creating good harmony, he does so
by promoting the fundamental nature of the bass. flange then compares
Fludd's emphasis on the bass with Zarlino and Glarean'.s
recognition that "the lowest voice was also the fundament" (p.
17). This is a misunderstanding of Zarlino and Glarean, and it serves to
obscure just. how fascinating Rudd's handling of the bass is.
Zarlino claims that the bass is "like the earth" and thus
supports the entire harmony. However, compositional motion in Zarlino is
still largely judged through the tenor's relationship U) the
cantos. Not so in Hudd. Here we find rides that are shockingly similar
to those we will find (in clearer form, of course) a hundred years later
in the writings of Rameau.

These issues do little to mar the value of this book. Careful
readers will easily avoid the pitfalls in what is otherwise a very
gracious translation. Moreover the accessibility of the book as a whole
will doubtless inspire scholars to dig more deeply into this intriguing,
if bewildering, genre of music theoretical writing.

CHADWICK JENKINS City University of Arno York

COPYRIGHT 2012 Music Library Association, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.